2021, Vol. 28
2. Department of Tourism, School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa;
3. Department of Environmental Science, University for Development Studies (UDS), Navrongo, Ghana
Certain land use practices have led to land degradation, which threatened water resources and food security, and engendered biodiversity depletion. Kanianska[1] argues that increasing agricultural intensity generates pressure not only on land resources but also across other ecosystems. Yang et al.[2] and Kuai et al.[3] further emphasize that water resource pollution from both point source and nonpoint source (NPS) are associated with land degradation because of land use practices. This study investigates Sustainable Land use Management (SLM), its legal framework and adoption in response to water resource degradation in the Ashi River watershed.
Globally, SLM practices have been acknowledged as a panacea to water resource pollution, food security, biodiversity depletion[4-5], and adverse effects of land degradation on water resources[6]. Literature has also highlighted several benefits of SLM practices, amongst which are prevention of soil erosion, improved soil fertility, control of NPS pollutants, increase in output and ecosystems sustainability[7-8]. Notwithstanding the fact that the values and practices of SLM are recognized and progressively encouraged at policy and development cooperation level, Sanz et al.[9] argue that a wide gap still exists between the acknowledgement of the need for SLM and the implementation of successful SLM practices. This can be due to the lack of access to knowledge and information on SLM options, insufficient resources in land, noncompliance penalties, weak enforcement capabilities, governance problems, or the voluntary nature of SLM practices.
SLM practices can be voluntary or regulatory. Scholars have argued that conservation technologies of SLM practices are voluntary rather than regulatory[10-11]. Thus, given the voluntary nature of SLM practices, SLM decision-making and its impact on water quality in watershed depends on whether land users adopt SLM practices or not. The impact of SLM practices therefore will be successful, if land users extensively adopt the practices in watersheds. Literature supports that sustained political will, government investment, and accessibility to best SLM practices which simultaneously increase yields and reduce land degradation have an influence on voluntary adoption of SLM[7]. There are also arguments that the success of the SLM practices further depends on the institutional set-up of a country, its power structures and the legal environment in which individuals and organizations operate[7]. In the United State of America, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program provides federal grants to states, tribes, and territories to develop and implement NPS management programs, projects, and practices[12].
China has executed a number of national sustainability policies in order to fulfill the requirement of sustainable development goals[13]. However, China's water resources still have pollution challenges with long-term unsustainable land management[13]. Though SLM practices have been implemented in China to address the threats of land degradation on water resources, the adoption and upscaling of such practices are limited to a few land users in the provinces where national sustainability policies are implemented.
Studies demonstrate that there is low rate of SLM practices adoption among land users in China due to several factors[14-16]. Researchers have cited con icts of interests among related stakeholders as hindrance to the implementation of SLM practices and policies that seek to prevent NPS pollution of water resources[17-20]. Rolfe and Harvey[21] further numerated factors that influence land users' adoption of SLM practices. These factors include mechanisms for access to information (e.g., extension programs), change of attitudes (e.g., education programs), technology improvement (e.g., research programs), provision of incentives to change behavior, and regulatory programs. However, activating widespread adoption factors of SLM practices for positive impact on water quality is often challenging, and substantial research effort has been applied to understand what factors underpin land users' choices to adopt SLM practices[22-25].
In spite of the numerous drivers that influence the adoption of SLM practices, many studies have rather focused on analyzing the socio-economic drivers affecting farmer's decision to adopt SLM practices[26-31]. In addition, studies are only limited to farmers as land users who degrade land through their activities. Other land users have not been emphasized, yet they also contribute to land degradation and adoption of SLM practices. To date, there is limited and unclear research on institutional/legal framework and its influence on the acceptance of SLM practices at watershed scale, such as Ashi River watershed[10]. Meanwhile, the Ashi River watershed is noted for problems with land degradation resulting from the practices of land use/land cover (LULC) change. Particularly, evidence demonstrates that activities of land users influence SLM practices and NPS pollution of water resources in the watershed but have not been clearly understood. Thus, the goal of this paper is to appreciate the SLM practices with the legal framework for adoption of such practices in the Ashi River watershed. Specifically, the main objective of this research is to understand the status of SLM practices with the legal framework for adopting such practices to tackle water resource degradation in the watershed. It is necessary to understand how SLM practices adoption could prevent NPS pollution of water resources in watershed. In order to achieve this objective, the study addresses the following questions: 1) What is the land use/land cover (LULC) change pattern of the watershed? 2) What is the belief of land users about adoption and practices of SLM in the watershed? 3) How does institutional/legal framework influence the adoption of SLM practices in the watershed? 4) What are the socio-demographic factors underlying the views of the land users? The aim of this study is to improve SLM practices and their implementation and enforcement regulations of the study site in China, as well as to provide instances for other areas with similar environmental settings. The results of this study will contribute to literature on land degradation, water resources pollution, and debates about policy strategies for sustainable development goals.
1 Data and Methods 1.1 Description of the Study AreaAshi River watershed is 3545 km2 in terms of area extend. It is bounded by latitudes 45°05' and 45°49'N and longitudes 126°40' and 127°42'E within the southwest of Heilongjiang Province, China. Ashi River is the major waterway of the watershed, with a length of about 213 km. The elevation of the watershed is from 109 to 833 m above sea level. It is at in the northwestern part, whereas the southeastern part of the area exhibits low-lying hilly and sloping forest cover. The watershed is challenged with extreme coldness during the winter season, with a mean temperature of 3.4℃ and minimum temperature of - 40℃. It experiences winter season in the month of November and mid-April with uneven rainfall, which has its peak in July and August. The average annual rainfall is 580-600 mm[32]. Ashi River watershed was selected for this study because Heilongjiang Province is the largest commodity grain production area in China, and faces a significant NPS pollution in most of its major water bodies. Ashi River located in the province is the foremost river of Ashi River watershed and one of the important tributaries of Songhua River in Northeast China. The Songhua River basin is a national main commodity grain base and supports the national food basket with 53% of maize and 37% of soybean. It is also source of drinking and irrigation water in north-eastern China[33]. However, since China accepted the "open-up" policy and economic reform, Ashi River watershed has been challenged by rapid urban sprawl and agriculture development, resulting in the destruction of ecosystems and worsening of the water quality of Ashi River. Consequently, Ashi River has been reported as one of the polluted tributaries of Songhua River[34]. Although scientific and engineering approaches as well as programs have been executed to address nutrient reduction, NPS runoff from agricultural lands and urban areas remains a major source of water quality impairment to the freshwater of Ashi River[32, 35]. Dependence on industrialized approaches could pose a challenge to fundamentally change the status of the water quality and environmental deterioration. Therefore, it is urgent to persuade farmers and other land users in Ashi River watershed to adopt a comprehensive land-based approaches such as SLM practices to basically address this concern.
1.2 Data SourceThis study was based on both primary and secondary data. The secondary data were obtained from policy documents, reports, and empirical studies conducted in Ashi River watershed. The secondary data made it possible to have initial understanding of the land use practices and their impacts on water resources in the watershed. Primary data were obtained from remoted sensing and survey for empirical evidence to address the research questions.
1.3 MethodsThe study involved two procedural stages. In the first stage, the study measured previous LULC changes in the watershed to detect the magnitude and trend of urban sprawl, agricultural activities, as well as changes between diverse LULC categories. The second stage involved a survey research that explored the opinion of the local inhabitants in the watershed about the status of SLM practices and its legal framework supporting the adoption of SLM practices.
Stage 1: Measuring the historical LULC change patterns in Ashi River watershed
To quantify the LULC change, fieldwork was conducted with Global Position System (GPS) to take training samples for each LULC type to aid validation. This was complemented by past images archived in Google Earth. 30 m Landsat satellite images were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Explorer site (http://glovis.usgs.gov). These images were extracted to measure LULC changes in the study area. The study area lies within one Landsat path (117) and two rows (28 and 29). The two scenes of 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014 were recorded October 26th, November 11th, October 9th, and October 27th, respectively. LULC maps were generated for four time points, namely 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014, based on the spectral differences exhibited by the features in the study area. The images were classified using the maximum likelihood algorithm, due to its ability for quantitative analysis of remotely sensed images[36] and the familiarity of the study area. In all, six LULC types were detected, namely,
·Urban (URB): impervious surfaces, residential, industrial, transportation, communications, commercial and bare surfaces;
·Water (WAT): rivers, lakes, and ponds;
·Agriculture (AGR): pasture, cropland (rice), orchards, and fallow land;
·Closed Canopy Forest (CLC): areas with mature trees growing close together;
·Open Canopy Forest (OPC): areas with a partial disturbance in tree canopy either through logging or burning; and
·Other vegetation (OTV): all vegetation features that are not typical of forest and agriculture. e.g., grassland/shrubs with very few scattered trees.
The area coverage of each five LULC categories was calculated for the year 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014. Also, comparative analysis of the change in LULC during 1990-2000, 2000-2010, and 2010-2014 was conducted. Following recommended protocols [37-38], quantitative analysis of the change in the LULC classes was also carried out. To interpret the patterns and dimensions of land use transitions, TerrSet Geospatial Monitoring and Modelling Software was used to analyze and create maps for the spatial trend of change. A value of 0 was assigned to the areas of no conversion and a value of 1 assigned to the areas of conversion. This was to produce spatial trend of change in order to generalize the LULC change pattern.
Stage 2: Exploring opinion of the local inhabitants about institutional/legal framework backing SLM practices and its impact on the adoption status of practices in the watershed
After creating the spatial extend of historical LULC change patterns in the watershed, a survey instrument was constructed to enquire the opinion of the local inhabitants of Ashi River watershed about the adoption level of SLM practices and what could be influencing that level.
1.4 Design of the Survey Instrument and Population SamplingTo address the research questions on SLM practices and the enabling legal environment for the adoption of SLM practice in Ashi River watershed, the design of the survey instrument (questionnaire) was structured according to the objectives of the research, aiming at obtaining answers from farmers, other land users, and authorities. The LADA-WOCAT[39] questionnaire for mapping land degradation and SLM practices was also used as a guide in formulating the questions. The questionnaire is comprised of 22 questions. The range of answers to all questions corresponded to 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Questionnaire for 150 respondents were selected from two control units in the watershed, where the river pollution is considered high. The questionnaires were designed specifically to assess the knowledge of farmers and other land users on the awareness of SLM technologies and practices, the application of these technologies during land use activities in the watershed, and effort put in place by authorities to promote the adoption of these practices. The selection of the respondents was random based on the lottery method from the two control units' communities. The total population in the target control unit communities of about 558334 was considered in determining the sample size of the survey by using Yamane's sample size calculation formula[40]. The study set 10% confidence interval and used 95% confidence level to arrive at a sample size of 100. However, 150 responses were recorded for this study. The interviews included speaking to farmers and other land users who reside in the watershed for at least 15 years and some officials of local authorities concerned with land management. Focus group discussions about local knowledge on SLM technologies were held in two communities with 11 people in each group of both genders who are engaged in farming. This approach has been used to carry out similar studies elsewhere[41]. Observations of farmlands were also made to gather information about the application of SLM technologies by some farmers.
1.5 Statistical AnalysisSPSS version 25.0 was used to perform descriptive and inferential analysis on the generated data from the questionnaires. Views of farmers, other land users, and authorities were collected, analyzed, and graphically presented to indicate stakeholder's opinion on the enabling institutional environment and policy framework for the adoption of SLM practices, which enhances control measures of NPS pollution of Ashi River. Multiple regression analysis was performed to measure the influences affecting the opinion of respondents about SLM practices adoption, and the extent to which respondents hold the status of institutional and legal framework responsible for SLM adoption and upscaling in the watershed.
2 Results 2.1 Accuracy AssessmentLULC maps of Ashi River watershed at four different time points, namely 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014, were produced, which shows AGR and URB are increasing in size throughout the period(Table 1). AGR appears to expand at a faster rate and the expansion is more in the southern part of the basin. Table 1 presents the accuracy of each LULC types quantified based on producer's accuracy (omission error) and user's accuracy (commission error). Due to the similarity of OTV with OPC and CLC classes, a minimum of about 67% record was accepted for OTV.
|
Table 1 Accuracy assessment values for LULC maps |
2.2 Characteristics of LULC Change in the Watershed
The quantitative analysis of the LULC types shows a change in different segment of the watershed with different trajectories. Table 2 shows a systematic transition involving an increase in URB, WAT, AGR, OPC, and OTV while a decrease in CLC from 1990 to 2000. The water area has shown a change, accounting for more than 100% change during this period. Furthermore, OPC, URB, AGR, and WAT continued to experience an increase from 2000 to 2010, with a decrease in OTV and CLC. From 2010 to 2014, a decrease was observed in OPC and CLC with continued increase in URB, AGR, and OTV, while WAT was stable during this period. Overall, the total area of CLC decreased from 1178.6 km2 in 1990 to 243.2 km2 in 2014, with an annual decreasing rate of 39 km2/year. In contrast, URB and AGR kept increasing and showed a relative growth of 227.6% and 10.2% from their original state, respectively. The areas of OPC and OTV increased from 1990 to 2014 in spite of experiencing a decrease in the periods of 2000-2010 and 2010-2014. The relative trends of these changes suggest that urban and agriculture had a progressive increasing trend of change in their area extent, while closed canopy forest area had a continuously decreasing trend. The results also showed increase and decrease trend in open forest and other vegetation. The water cover class had an increase in the first stage and became stable in the rest of the stages.
|
|
Table 2 Area of LULC classes (km2) and change in the LULC classes (1990, 2000, 2010, 2014) |
Furthermore, the results revealed that AGR, OPC, and CLC forest contributed the largest portion of the net change in URB area. AGR area of 82.08 km2 and forest area (OPC and CLC forest) of 13.76 km2 that existed in 2000 was urbanized by 2014. Also, OPC forest, CLC forest, and OTV contributed to the net change in AGR area between 2000 and 2014, with an area extend of 131.94 km2, 62.12 km2, and 37.99 km2, respectively(Fig. 1). The results indicated that greatest transformation from forest cover (OPC/CLC forest) to AGR was more intense along the center-south line towards the south eastern part of the watershed. Conversion from forest was also extreme in the central to south eastern part of the watershed.
|
Fig.1 Contribution to net change in agriculture and urban areas of the watershed |
2.3 Overview of Land Use Practices and NPS Pollution Trend in Ashi River Watershed
The contribution of land use practices to Ashi River pollution has been reported by scientist, policy documents, and reports. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between LULC types and NPS pollution in Ashi River watershed in different years (2000, 2005, and 2008). Also, Table 3 shows the contribution of different land use types to NPS pollution in Ashi River watershed including breeding, rural life, urban runoff, planting, forest, grassland, and other land use. Moreover, agricultural tracks and fields were recorded to contribute 4293.93 tons/year of COD and 858.79 tons/year of ammonia nitrogen into Ashi River (Ashi River Body Compliance Programme, 2016).
|
Fig.2 NPS-TN and NPS-TP load from land use types (Source: Ma et al.[42] (2016)) |
|
|
Table 3 NSP load of Ashi River watershed in 2010 |
2.4 Understanding Public Perception of SLM Practices Adoption through Qualitative Analysis 2.4.1 Characteristics of respondents
A total of 150 questionnaires were administered in two control units within the watershed, where the river pollution is considered high. Table 4 presents the demographic data of the survey.
|
|
Table 4 Explanatory variables/demographic profile of the respondents |
2.4.2 Constructs
Tables 5-6 shows the descriptive statistics of the two constructs generated from the queries administered to respondents in Ashi River watershed during the opinion poll. A scale of 1 to 4, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4) was assigned to all constructs. Two dependent variables were generated based on the two constructs of the study. The first dependent variable/construct measured the perception of the respondents about the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed. The second dependent variable/construct measured the perceptions of respondents about the extent to which legal framework influences the adoption level of the SLM practices in the watershed. The two constructs showed 0.62 and 0.77 values of reliability test with Cronbach's alpha respectively, which indicate a good degree of internal consistency.
|
|
Table 5 Constructs designed in the survey |
|
|
Table 6 Constructs designed in the survey |
2.4.3 Multiple regression model
Table 7 showed the summary of the multiple regression model parameters. In the first model, the study regressed the perception of respondents about SLM practices adoption in the watershed against a range of independent variables. The model output indicated that the dependent variable was significantly influenced by the levels of profession. When compared with the profession respondents, the farmers indicated a significantly higher sensitivity towards the adoption level and upscaling of SLM practices in the watershed (β= 0.046).
|
|
Table 7 Relationships between dependent and independent variables |
In the second model, the study regressed a construct against the same set of independent variables. Results from the model also indicated that profession was a significantly important predictor with farmer respondents (β=0.077), showing a strong belief that the effectiveness of the legal framework is the major factor behind the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed. Similarly, age was also a significant predictor (β=-0.033) where respondents in the youth category showed more sensitivity towards legal framework as the agent influencing the adoption of SLM practices in the watershed.
2.5 Status of Rules and Regulation Backing the Acceptance of SLM Practices in the WatershedThe research also revealed that 60% of the respondents confirmed that regulations and guidelines have been enacted by government authorities for the adoption of SLM practices. However, 17% of the respondents disagreed with that assertion. As to whether these regulations and guidelines are functioning well, 59% of the respondents disagreed with the reason that the regulations are not compelling land users to adopt SLM practices in the watershed. Furthermore, 31% of the respondents said regulations and guidelines enacted by authorities are not clearly stated to follow. On the contrary, 9% strongly agreed that regulations and guidelines are clearly stated to promote SLM practices in the watershed. Fig. 3 shows the perceptions of respondents about the implementation and enforcement of regulations for the adoption of SLM practices in the watershed, based on a scale measurement of 1 to 4 ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The findings of the survey also indicated that 57% of respondents agreed implementation and enforcement of regulations are not yielding results, because land degradation is still occurring in the watershed, whereas 13% of respondents disagreed with that notion.
|
Fig.3 Perception of respondents about regulations backing SLM practices in Ashi River watershed |
3 Discussion
Growing demand for sources of clean water and changing land use practices threatens environmental resources, especially global water resources. Unsustainable land use practices impact negatively on watershed hydrological systems and water quality. Addressing this issue requires SLM practices with in-depth information on LULC characteristics. Currently, there is a global interest to protect water resources through SLM practices in watersheds, given international commitments, such as UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), International Land Coalition, and Global Water Partnership (GWP) for the restoration of degraded ecosystems[44]. These are in line with the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals for clean water in the 21st century.
In this investigation, the study examined the patterns of past land use practices in Ashi River watershed, and explored the opinion of the local inhabitants about the adoption of SLM practices as affected by institutional and legal framework put in place to back SLM practices. The geospatial-based analysis of the LULC change in Ashi River watershed suggested that the urban and agriculture areas have a continuous increasing trend, causing a reduction in the forest area of the watershed. Our findings conform to future predictions that propose urban areas are expected to increase from 300000 km2 to 1200000 km2 between 2000 and 2050[45].
The adverse impact of LULC change on water resources has been widely reported[46]. For instance, scholars[42-43, 47-48] have concluded that the degraded water quality of Ashi River is because of the rapid land use practices, especially agriculture and urban sprawl in Ashi River watershed. Based on these conclusions, the study speculated that the adoption level and upscaling of the best practices of land use management in Ashi River watershed that could help prevent the degradation of the river water quality has been hindered by institutional and legal framework. To examine this hypothesis, the study conducted an opinion poll survey to inquire the views of the local communities within Ashi River watershed about the adoption level of SLM practices, and how they perceived regulations and guidelines promoting SLM technologies as an agent of the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed. Evidences suggest that socio-cultural, institutional, economic, and policy barriers have effects on the promotion, adoption, and upscaling of SLM practices at large scale[9, 49].
Earlier investigations have concluded that SLM practices are vital parameters for healthy water resources, and are frequently seen as a measure of sound watershed management[50-51]. The application of SLM practices (conservation tillage, increase of forest cover, etc.) in watersheds is often strongly correlated to healthy status of watershed and good water quality[52]. The findings in our geospatial analysis indicated a decline in forest cover between 1990 and 2014, with an increase in agriculture and urban area. This is confirmed by findings from the survey (Table 5), where people in the watershed believed that land degradation is occurring in the watershed due to deforestation, urbanization, high use of fertilizers and pesticides. Next, the survey findings suggested that people of Ashi River watershed strongly believe that there are no regulations and guidelines supporting SLM practices in the watershed. Besides, they also believe that the implementation and enforcement of regulations for the adoption of SLM practices are not working or weak. This corresponds to the assumption that institutional and legal framework supporting SLM adoption has obvious influences on the level of acceptance and upscaling of SLM practices. This is buttressed by the fact that improved enforcement of regulations was found to positively influence wider adoption of SLM practices in sub-Saharan Africa[53].Similarly, deforestation in favor of urban sprawl and agriculture activities alters surface runoff by increasing NPS pollution of water resources[54]. Moreover, LULC change analysis of Ashi River watershed indicated a rapid growth of agriculture and urban areas and the impacts of this growth were manifested during the survey study, where the respondents not only presented strong agreement that the adoption of SLM practices is low, resulting in poor water quality, but also agreed that the adoption and upscaling of SLM practice is strongly correlated to the regulations and guidelines promoting adoption and upscaling of SLM practices in the watershed.
Besides, the study examined the socioeconomic aspects that determine the people's view about the adoption level of SLM practices, and the extent to which people believed the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed is caused by the institutional and legal framework put in place to promote the adoption of the practices. With regard to the first dependent variable, the findings suggested that the local people of Ashi River watershed do not believe there is adoption of SLM practices within the watershed (score of 2.58 on a scale of 1 to 4). Profession was found to be a significant determinant for this dependent variable. The respondents in Ashi River watershed who are not farmers but other land users were significantly less sensitive to the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed. The result is understandable in the sense that Ashi River watershed is the main agricultural zone of Heilongjiang Province and so the majority of land users are farmers. Given this fact, it is natural for those who are directly involved in the usage of the physical land for livelihood to be more sensitive to the problem and causes of land degradation. Similarly, studies carried out by Ntshangase et al.[55] argues that farmers are significantly sensitive towards the adoption of SLM practices. For the second dependent variable - the extent to which people believe the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed is due to the institutional and legal framework put in place to promote the adoption of SLM practices, the respondents believed that the assertion (a score of 2.07 on a scale of 1 to 4) per the questions have been asked. It is found that the farmers and the youth group were more convinced of the fact that the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed is caused by the institutional and legal framework put in place to promote SLM practices.
Furthermore, the results from the regression analysis indicated that other land users were not sensitive to the factors influencing the adoption of SLM practices in the watershed, but farmers were found to be highly sensitive towards the drivers causing the adoption rate of SLM practices in the watershed. This implies that farmers who often rely on land for their livelihood are aware of the benefits of SLM practices. However, because of lack of the enabling institutional and legal framework environment, such as capacity buildings, incentives, and enforcement of regulations to promote the adoption of SLM practices, the adoption level of SLM is low in the watershed. In addition, the results indicated that respondents in the youth group ascribed institutional and legal framework as the driver of the adoption level of SLM practices in the watershed. This may be due to the fact that young farmers are not accustomed to conventional methods of managing land, and are ready to learn and adopt new SLM technologies but are limited by the lack of capacity building and awareness of SLM practices. Referring to numerous parameters influencing the acceptance level of SLM practices, our results suggest that the key factor is the institutional and legal framework supporting the promotion and upscaling of SLM practices in the watershed. This is in agreement with Nkonya et al.[53]which confirms that besides improved rule of law, crucial role played by governance and incentives attracts wider adoption of SLM practices. Also, the findings are consistent with Ntshangase et al.[55], Tamini et al.[56], D'Emden et al.[57], Ward et al.[58] and Lemke et al. [59], which argue that deployment of extension officers to train farmers on SLM technologies is more likely to attract the adoption of SLM technologies by farmers.
4 Limitation of the StudyDespite the fact that the study provided an insight into the perception of people about the adoption of SLM practices and the drivers causing the adoption rate in Ashi River watershed, it is recognized that although the sample size for the opinion polls conducted was statistically satisfactory, the study could not employ qualitative interviews to make the results more concrete and explanatory. Also, though the findings indicated a significant predictor among the chosen explanatory variables, the general variations in the responses explained by the predictors (R2 value) remained low, which implies that there may be other underlying explanatory variables. Based on this limitation, a large sample size is indorsed for more comprehensive conclusions, and more variables should be considered to better discover the drivers behind people's understanding of legal framework for SLM technologies and how it affects the adoption rate of SLM practices in the watershed in future studies.
5 Conclusions and RecommendationIn this study, the LULC change pattern from 1990 to 2014 in Ashi River watershed was investigated. The relationship between LULC change and NPS pollution over years in the watershed were also examined. Subsequently, the study explored the perception of respondents living in Ashi River watershed about the adoption rate of SLM practices and its association with legal framework backing the promotion of SLM practices adoption. The study observed that urban and agriculture areas expanded over the years, and this expansion has contributed to NPS pollution of Ashi River. The qualitative analysis indicated that respondents believed there is poor adoption rate of SLM practices. Enabling institutional and legal framework was confirmed as a key factor, which influences adoption and upscale of SLM practices in the watershed. Furthermore, farmer was identified among the demographic characteristics of the respondents as the most sensitive to the adoption of SLM technologies in Ashi River watershed. Nevertheless, the regression model proposes that there could be other significant demographic and socioeconomic traits (especially age) which need to be analyzed in future studies. This study has confirmed that the pollution issue of Ashi River reported in other studies[32, 35, 47, 48]could be attributed to the adoption level and upscaling of SLM practices in Ashi River watershed. Therefore, this study recommends that capacity building and strict regulations should be put in place to promote the adoption of SLM practices in the watershed. Policy makers and regulators should ensure capacity building and enforcement of regulations to specifically compel farmers to adopt SLM technologies to complement other strategies instead of relying on only engineering approaches to solve the NPS pollution issue of Ashi River.
| [1] |
Kanianska R. Agriculture and its Impact on Land-Use, Environment, and Ecosystem Services. Almusaed A. Landscape Ecology-The Influences of Land Use and Anthropogenic Impacts of Landscape Creation. London: IntechOpen, 2016. 1-26. DOI: 10.5772/63719.
(  0) |
| [2] |
Yang H C, Wang G Q, Ya ng, Y, et al. Assessment of the impacts of land use changes on nonpoint source pollution inputs upstream of the Three Gorges Reservoir. Scientific World Journal, 2014, 2014: 526240. DOI:10.1155/2014/526240 ( 0) |
| [3] |
Kuai P, Li W, L iu, N F. Evaluating the effects of land use planning for non-point source pollution based on a system dynamics approach in China. PloS One, 2015, 10(8): e0135572. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0135572 ( 0) |
| [4] |
Molden D. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Routledge, 2013.
( 0) |
| [5] |
Critchley W, Radstake F. Sustainable land management in Asia: Introducing the landscape approach. http://www.environmentportal.in/files/file/landscape-land-mgt.pdf, 2020-06-17.DOI: 10.22617/rpt178638-2.
( 0) |
| [6] |
Gattinger A, Jawtusch J, Müller A, et al. No-till agriculture- A climate smart solution? https://orgprints.org/20302/1/MISEREOR_no_till.pdf, 2020-06-17.
( 0) |
| [7] |
Liniger H, Studer R M, Hauert C, et al. Sustainable land management in practice: Guidelines and best practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.fao.org/3/i1861e/i1861e.pdf, 2020-06-17.
( 0) |
| [8] |
Ziadat F, Bunning S, De Pauw E. Land resource planning for sustainable land management. https://gltn.net/2018/01/19/land-resource-planning-for-sustainable-land-management/, 2019-10-06.
( 0) |
| [9] |
Sanz M J, De Vente J, Chotte J L, et al. Sustainable land management contribution to successful land-based climate change adaptation and mitigation: a report of the science-policy interface. http://admin.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/UNCCD_Report_SLM.pdf, 2020-06-17.
( 0) |
| [10] |
Liu T T, Bruins R J F, Heberling M T. Factors influencing farmers' adoption of best management practices: a review and synthesis. Sustainability, 2018, 10: 432. DOI:10.3390/su10020432 ( 0) |
| [11] |
Ranjan P, Church S P, Floress, K, et al. Synthesizing conservation motivations and barriers: what have we learned from qualitative studies of farmers' behaviors in the United States? Society & Natural Resources, 2019, 44(5): 1-29. Society & Natural Resources, 2019, 44(5): 1-29. DOI:10.1080/08941920.2019.1648710 ( 0) |
| [12] |
McDowell R W, Dils R M, Collins A L, et al. A review of the policies and implementation of practices to decrease water quality impairment by phosphorus in New Zealand, the UK, and the US. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2016, 104(3): 289-305. DOI:10.1007/s10705-015-9727-0 ( 0) |
| [13] |
Sun X F, Gao L, Ren H, et al. China's progress towards sustainable land development and ecological civilization. Landscape Ecology, 2018, 33: 1647-1653. DOI:10.1007/s10980-018-0706-0 ( 0) |
| [14] |
Hu R F, Cai Y Q, Chen K Z, et al. Effects of inclusive village level public agricultural extension service: policy reform experiment in western China. International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE)>2009 Conference. Milwaukee, USA: IAAE, 2009. 1-20. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.51902.
( 0) |
| [15] |
Li Z G, Zhang R H, Wang X J, et al. Carbon dioxide fluxes and concentrations in a cotton field in northwestern China: effects of plastic mulching and drip irrigation. Pedosphere, 2011, 21(2): 178-185. DOI:10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60116-1 ( 0) |
| [16] |
Lal R. Sustainable intensification of China's agroecosystems by conservation agriculture. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2018, 6(1): 1-12. DOI:10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.11.001 ( 0) |
| [17] |
Jiang Y. China's water security: current status, emerging challenges and future prospects. Environmental Science and Policy, 2015, 54: 106-125. DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.006 ( 0) |
| [18] |
Cheng H F, Hu Y N. Improving China's water resources management for better adaptation to climate change. Climate, 2012, 112(2): 253-282. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0042-8 ( 0) |
| [19] |
Xie H L. Towards sustainable land use in China: a collection of empirical studies. Sustainability, 2017, 9(11): 1-9. DOI:10.3390/su9112129 ( 0) |
| [20] |
Zhang L L, Schwärzel K. China's land resources dilemma: problems, outcomes, and options for sustainable land restoration. Sustainability, 2017, 9(12): 2362. DOI:10.3390/su9122362 ( 0) |
| [21] |
Rolfe J, Harvey S. Heterogeneity in practice adoption to reduce water quality impacts from sugarcane production in Queensland. Journal of Rural Studies, 2017, 54: 276-287. DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.021 ( 0) |
| [22] |
Pannell D J, Marshall G R, Barr N, et al. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2006, 46(11): 1407-1424. DOI:10.1071/EA05037 ( 0) |
| [23] |
Knowler D, Bradshaw B. Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 2007, 32(1): 25-48. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003 ( 0) |
| [24] |
Prokopy L S, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, et al. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 63(5): 300-311. DOI:10.2489/jswc.63.5.300 ( 0) |
| [25] |
Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy L S, Floress K. Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. Journal of Environment Management, 2012, 96(1): 17-25. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 ( 0) |
| [26] |
Sheikh A D, Rehman T, Yates C M. Logit models for identifying the factors that influence the uptake of new 'no-tillage' technologies by farmers in the rice-wheat and the cotton-wheat farming systems of Pakistan's Punjab. Agricultural Systems, 2003, 75(1): 79-95. DOI:10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00014-8 ( 0) |
| [27] |
D'Emden F H, Llewellyn R S, Burton M P. Factors influencing adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2008, 52(2): 169-182. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2008.00409.x ( 0) |
| [28] |
D'souza G, Cyphers D, Phipps T. Factors affecting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 1993, 22(2): 159-165. DOI:10.1017/S1068280500004743 ( 0) |
| [29] |
Adesina A A, Zinnah M M. Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and adoption decisions: a Tobit model application in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Economics, 1993, 9(4): 297-311. DOI:10.1016/0169-5150(93)90019-9 ( 0) |
| [30] |
Soule M J, Tegene A, Wiebe K D. Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2000, 82(4): 993-1005. DOI:10.1111/0002-9092.00097 ( 0) |
| [31] |
Wang N, Gao Y, Wang Y H, et al. Adoption of eco-friendly soil-management practices by smallholder farmers in Shandong Province of China. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2016, 62(2): 185-193. DOI:10.1080/00380768.2016.1149779 ( 0) |
| [32] |
Ma F, Jiang X F, Wang L, et al. Distributed simulation of non-point source pollution in Ashi River Basin. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, 2015, 22(3): 31-39. DOI:10.11916/j.issn.1005-9113.2015.03.005 ( 0) |
| [33] |
Ma W L, Liu L Y, Qi H, et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water, sediment and soil of the Songhua River Basin, China. Environment Monitoring Assessment, 2013, 185(10): 8399-8409. DOI:10.1007/s10661-013-3182-7 ( 0) |
| [34] |
Li N, Tian Y, Zhang J, et al. Heavy metal contamination status and source apportionment in sediments of Songhua River Harbin region, Northeast China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017, 24(4): 3214-3225. DOI:10.1007/s11356-016-7132-0 ( 0) |
| [35] |
Zhou J, Ma Y, Ye Z, et al. Load and status evaluation of agricultural non-point source pollution in Ashi River Basin. Environmental Science and Management, 2011, 36(5): 164-168. ( 0) |
| [36] |
Lillesand T M, Kiefer R W. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1994.
( 0) |
| [37] |
Manzoor S A, Griffiths G, Iizuka K, et al. Land cover and climate change may limit invasiveness of rhododendron ponticum in Wales. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2018, 9: 664. DOI:10.3389/fpls.2018.00664 ( 0) |
| [38] |
Iizuka K, Johnson B A, Onishi A, et al. Modeling future urban sprawl and landscape change in the Laguna de Bay Area, Phillipines. Land, 2017, 6(2): 26. DOI:10.3390/land6020026 ( 0) |
| [39] |
Liniger H, Van Lynden, G., Nachtergaele F, Schwilch, G, Biancalani R. A questionnaire for mapping land degredation and sustainable land management. CDE/WOCAT, FAO/LADA, ISRIC. 2008.
( 0) |
| [40] |
Yamane T. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1967.
( 0) |
| [41] |
Stringer L C, Reed M S. Land degradation assessment in southern Africa: integrating local and scientific knowledge bases. Land Degradation and Development, 2007, 18(1): 99-116. DOI:10.1002/ldr.760 ( 0) |
| [42] |
Ma F, Jiang X F, Wang L, et al. Analysis of the Relationship between land use and non-point source pollution in Ashi River Basin. Journal of Donghua University (English Edition), 2016, 33(1): 25-31. ( 0) |
| [43] |
Ma G W, Wang Y Y, He L H, et al. Study on non-point sources pollution loading of nitrogen and phosphorus in Ashi river basin. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2017, 69: 012033. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/69/1/012033 ( 0) |
| [44] |
Nkonya E, Cenacchi N, Ringler C, et al. International Cooperation for Sustainable Land and Water Management. SOLAW Background Thematic Report - TR16, http://www.fao.org/nr/solaw/thematic-reports/en/, 2020-06-17.
( 0) |
| [45] |
Seto K C, Güneralp B, Hutyra L R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012, 109(40): 16083-16088. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1211658109 ( 0) |
| [46] |
Yira Y, Diekkrüger B, Steup G, et al. Modeling land use change impacts on water resources in a tropical West African catchment (Dano, Burkina Faso). Journal of Hydrology, 2016, 537: 187-199. DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.052 ( 0) |
| [47] |
Ma G W, Wang Y Y, Bao X, et al. Nitrogen pollution characteristics and source analysis using the stable isotope tracing method in Ashi River, northeast China. Environment Earth Science, 2015, 73(8): 4831-4839. DOI:10.1007/s12665-014-3786-4 ( 0) |
| [48] |
Ma F, Jiang X F, Wang L, et al. Non-point source pollution control of Ashi Basin based on SWAT Model. Journal of Environmental Science-China, 2016, 36(2): 610-618. ( 0) |
| [49] |
Thomas R, Reed M, Clifton K, et al. A framework for scaling sustainable land management options. Land Degradation and Development, 2018, 29(10): 3272-3284. DOI:10.1002/ldr.3080 ( 0) |
| [50] |
Mwangi H M, Julich S, Feger K H. Introduction to Watershed Management. Pancel L, Köhl M. Tropical Forestry Handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2016. 1869-1896. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-54601-3.
( 0) |
| [51] |
Achouri M, Tennyson L, Upadhyay K, et al. Preparing for the next generation of Watershed Management Programmes and Projects. Proceedings of the Asian Regional Workshop. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2003.
( 0) |
| [52] |
Liniger H P, Studer R M, Hauert C, et al. Sustainable Land Management in Practice-Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2011.
( 0) |
| [53] |
Nkonya E, Mirzabaev A, von Braun J. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement - A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development. Cham: Springer Open, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3.
( 0) |
| [54] |
Kuai P, Li W, Liu N F. Evaluating the effects of land use planning for non-point source pollution based on a system dynamics approach in China. PloS ONE, 2015, 10(8): e0135572. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0135572 ( 0) |
| [55] |
Ntshangase N L, Muroyiwa B, Sibanda M. Farmers' perceptions and factors influencing the adoption of no-till conservation agriculture by small-scale farmers in Zashuke, KwaZulu-Natal Province. Sustainability, 2018, 10(2): 555. DOI:10.3390/su10020555 ( 0) |
| [56] |
Tamini L D. A nonparametric analysis of the impact of agri-environmental advisory activities on best management practice adoption: a case study of Quebec. Ecological Economics, 2011, 70(7): 1363-1374. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.012 ( 0) |
| [57] |
D'Emden F H, Llewellyn R S, Burton M P. Adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions: an application of duration analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2006, 73(6): 630-647. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.07.003 ( 0) |
| [58] |
Ward P S, Bell A R, Parkhurst G M, et al. Heterogeneous preferences and the effects of incentives in promoting conservation agriculture in Malawi. Agriculture. Ecosystems & Environment, 2016, 222: 67-79. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.005 ( 0) |
| [59] |
Lemke A M, Lindenbaum T T, Perry W L, et al. Effects of outreach on the awareness and adoption of conservation practices by farmers in two agricultural watersheds of the Mackinaw River, Illinois. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2010, 65(5): 304-315. DOI:10.2489/jswc.65.5.304 ( 0) |